File Format and Photo Size

<p>Hello,<br>

I have been doing photography as a side business for about 6 months now. I am still learning (obviously) and I am currently stuck on file formatting.<br>

When editing my photos I have been saving them as PNG format, because to me they seem to have much better quality than jpeg and I don't want to risk my clients being unsatisfied with their photos. However, some of my clients order their prints online and most websites require jpeg to print. I'm wondering what most other's use for their clients when copying their photos to disk.<br>

Also, I made the mistake previously of keeping the images at original size which is I think around 5000(w) by 3000(h) pixels or more. She wanted to get one of her photos done as a canvas and they told her the photo was too large and the heads of the clients would be wrapped over the edge. What size image do you give your clients? I would like them to be able to order any size they would like.</p>

<p>Thank you</p>

<p>Stephanie, how do you edit, which program? <br>

JPG is more often used than PNG, both have their merits. Depending on the settings you don't have to see a difference between the two. Personally I only use RAW, DNG, JPG and TiFF, other formats only if I can't avoid them. For prints (online and/of external): JPG only.<br>

Regarding the size of a photo: it can never be too large to print. The problem with canvas is as you describe, part of it will be wrapped over the edge. This is similar to using passepartouts where part of the picture hides behind the cardboard. The solution is to make black/white/colored borders around the photo. In case of a canvas you will have to know the exact size that's needed to show on the front. You can add a border in photoshop or in Irfanview, to name just a few programs. </p>

<p>Personally I use TIFF (with no compression) as standard and make a JPEG only when necessary - small JPEGs for screen display and full-size ones for sending as e-mail attachments.<br>

If your native file size (the size that comes out of the camera) is 5000 x 3000 pixels, this equates to a print approx. 10 x 16 inches at 300 ppi. Basically you should never change this - make smaller copies as required for web display etc. Your problem is that you have given files to a client who has in turn given them to a printing service. This service simply does not understand how files work. It is of course possible to change the printing size of a file while keeping the number of pixels the same. If the service does not have the knowledge or software to do this, you can help them out as Jos describes by first increasing the canvas size of your pictures (so that you have a wide white border, which will ultimately be wrapped round the canvas stretcher) and then re-sizing the image itself WITHOUT RE-SAMPLING so that it is just smaller than the stretcher and will look right when the canvas on the stretcher is framed.</p>

<p>+1 what David said.</p>

<p>There are two separate issues here. One is that as Jos said, you need a border if you are going to print on canvas and stretch the print on a frame. This has nothing to do with file size. The second issue is file size. Any good printing service will downsize the image as needed. I almost always print things myself, but when I use a lab, I use Bay Photo, and they specifically ask that you send them the largest file you can and let them to the downsizing. </p>

<p>I never use the PNG for photos. I shoot raw and use 16-bit TIFF for any software that can't handle the raw file--e.g., for stacking, and for bringing images back from Photoshop into Lightroom. When I export or save for other people, I always use sRGB JPG. That is the standard for the web and for most print labs (although some will also take Adobe RGB JPGs).</p>

<p>Unless maybe it's a commercial client that specifically asks for something else (most likely tif) the only thing that should ever go to a client is a jpg. You can work on the files in whatever file type you want but jpg is the standard for delivery to a client whether it's a portrait for an individual or a news photo for a publication. <br /><br />As others have said, there is no such thing as the file size being too big. Any lab can downsize a large file as needed.<br /><br />For the canvas print in question, what the lab was probably saying was not that the file size was too big. Rather, they were probably saying that there were heads so close to edges of the image that they would wrap around the sides on a wrapped canvas print. If the image already exists, adding borders would fix this, but the lab should have been able to have done that. You can do it yourself, but unless you know very precisely how much image gets lost in the wrap, you could end up with the borders showing on the front. In a wrapped canvas print, the image is supposed to extend around the sides. That's part of the look. You have to allow "bleed" as it's called in the printing business, when a photo is going to run "full bleed" on the page meaning it goes all the way to the edges. There has to be a bit extra since alignment is seldom perfect.<br /><br />The real answer is that you shouldn't shoot so tight that people will end up cropped out of the ends of pictures. Keep in mind that the standard proportions of a DSLR are 1:1.5, which works out easily to 4x6 or 8x12 prints but has to be cropped for 8x10, 11x14 etc even if it's a normal print rather than canvas. You are actually better to shoot a little loose to give some flexibility, then crop in tighter when making the print. Yes, this runs counter to the old advice to compose in the camera and fill the frame. That's nice camera club theory but not necessarilywhat works in the real world whether it's clients wanting to make different size prints or a publication that need to crop a picture to fit a space in a layout.</p>

<p>I have been a professional portrait, fashion and wedding photographer since 2014 and I use Pixieset.com to deliver client images other than weddings and some events, where a USB key is also posted with the higher resolution images.<br>

Here is my workflow - shoot in RAW, use Lightroom and/or Photoshop to post-process images (save the Photoshop edits as PSD and this best preserves the multiple layers for my needs) and use the Lighroom plugin for Pixieset to upload the images to my gallery. I export them to 240 dpi at 93% quality jpegs because my printers, Loxley Colour Lab, which is connected to Pixieset, claims that to be as much as they need for providing prints.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>When editing my photos I have been saving them as <em><strong>PNG</strong></em> format, because to me they seem to have much better quality than jpeg and I don't want to risk my clients being unsatisfied with their photos.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>PNG is a Mac OS image format for screen grabs. Maybe you mean PSD which is a Photoshop format.</p>

<p>[[PNG is a Mac OS image format for screen grabs]]<br>

<br>

While it may be true that the default option to save screen captures in MacOS is as a PNG, that does not make it "a MacOS image format." <br>

<br>

PNG stands for Portable Network Graphics and was originally intended as a non-proprietary replacement for GIF. It offers a much larger color space than GIF but is not usually the format used to save photographs. JPG is more efficient at that and offers better compression (even if it is lossy) than PNG. For the same photographic image, PNG file sizes will often be much much larger than the equivalent JPG and with almost zero noticeable difference in image quality. If file size is a concern, JPG is the better choice. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>PNG is a Mac OS image format for screen grabs. Maybe you mean PSD which is a Photoshop format.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nope. PNG stands for Portable Networks Graphics and is not OS-specific. Macs may store screen shots as PNGs--I'm not a mac user, so I don't know about that--but that would just be one use of the format. I don't use it for photo processing, but I use PNGs often for other purposes under both Windows and Linux.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>PNG stands for Portable Network Graphics and was originally intended as a non-proprietary replacement for GIF.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, but would it make for a better editing format over tiff or psd since the OP is saving in PNG with the possibility for further edits? Any details on that, Rob?</p>

<p>I've never used that format but just found out with a screengrab that a PNG can be saved after converting to 16 bit in Photoshop so it's possible it may be a superior editing format over jpeg.</p>

<I> I export them to 240 dpi at 93% quality jpegs because my printers... claim that to be as much as they need for providing prints.</I><P>

 

DPI is a print command. . I think what the lab means is 240 dpi is the lowest setting they will use and still get what they think is good quality. Tagging image files as 240 dpi (or any other number) has no effect on them.<P>

 

 

 

<center>

<img src="http://jdainis.com/100000_ppi_cannon.jpg"><BR>

Image saved at 100,000 dpi <BR>

500 x 338 pixels, 149 KB

<P>.<P>

 

<img src="http://jdainis.com/1000_ppi_cannon.jpg"><BR>

Image saved at 1000 dpi <BR>

500 x 338 pixels, 149 KB

<P>.<P>

 

<img src="http://jdainis.com/10_ppi_cannon.jpg"><BR>

Image saved at 10 dpi <br>

500 x 338 pixels, 149 KB

<P>.<P></center>

<p>PNG is an universal format, and in quite some ways superior to JPEG (and vastly superior to GIF, but that isn't hard). But PNG in the real world is mostly used for internet publishing. It's very uncommon to use for print. As David mentioned before, JPEG and TIFF are the standards, so it's best to stick to those. TIFFs can get very large, as a result, they're not too useful for online. Most online print services and most people are so adapted to JPEG, that it simply is the safest choice.<br>

If your JPEGs look a lot worse than PNG, then probably you have the quality settings for the JPEG export set too low. This setting controls the amount of compression to make the filesize (in kilobytes, for example the 149kB as James showed above) smaller. Set it too low, and ugly artifacts become visible. Set it high, and the files will be substantially larger, but the quality will be perfectly acceptable and there will little chance of visible artifacts.<br>

There is relatively little advantage in trying to shave off a few bytes of the filesize unless you're explicitely optimising for web publishing (which you're not - maybe your clients will, but that's theirs to do). So simply keep the JPEG quality at a high setting, and things should work out fine.</p>

<p>If you set the JPEG compression on very high quality, you can get larger files than the original. Anyone know the reason for that?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>PNG is an universal format...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Universal for what if as you've said it is a format mostly used for internet publishing which I've never come across being online for over ten years? I know that commercial printers both offset and photo lab inkjets don't use it, but I've never tested it to see if there would be a conflict.</p>

<p>Wouter, I'm not being argumentative, but your information on this format is confusing and not very useful. Would you say PNG is a superior format for EDITING PIXELS? I'ld say it is since I just found out it can be re-saved in 16 bit. JPEGs can't.</p>

<p>In theory PNG can mostly replace TIFF. In practice there's very little difference between a compressed TIFF and a PNG in file size and support for advanced PNG features is almost never implemented the way it is for TIFF. PNG is a much newer format and mostly has support as a replacement for GIF from back when people were worried about sleeper software patents on it.</p>

<p>Tim, universal in the sense that it isn't propietary or tied to a specific application. Not necessarily universal in its uses - in the same way TIFF and JPEG are universal, but not universally the best choice. If you need more information on PNG, of course https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Network_Graphics is a good starting point to understand the pros and cons of this specific file format, and where its uses are. Main points: compressed file format, support for transparency, support for RGB only. Developed specifically for the internet.</p>

<p>The OP never mentioned specific file editing, but asked about output file formats - my answer was to the OP, and so it focused on output (final) file formats, and what makes a good choice at that point in the workflow.</p>

<p>Steven What's a compressed TIFF? I thought TIFF aren't compressed at all although when I try to save a TIFF, it asks if I want to compress it. Isn't that the same a a JPEG?</p>

<p> Also, do you know why a JPEG can be larger than an original TIFF if you set the quality at max?</p>

<p>Alan, TIFF has optional (losless) compression, so a compressed TIFF is a file making use of that option. It is not the same as JPEG, as the compression algoritm used is different, plus JPEG is always 8-bits, and RGB or CMYK (the latter is rare), while TIFF supports alpha channels (transparency) and other colour models, plus 16-bits per channel colour info. Also the inner structure of these file types are not the same, they're truly different things.<br>

JPEG larger than an original TIFF - very unlikely. JPEG larger than an original JPEG is possible. When working on files using compression (such as JPEG), they are decompressed in the editing program. When saving them back afterwards with a higher quality setting than the original, the file size may increase. However, any artifact introduced in an earlier save-to-jpeg will remain unless you manually edited that out.</p>

<p>Thanks, for the info Wouter. I'll check out the PNG wikipedia you linked to. I knew I could've done that but I got the impression from your detailed input you might have been privy to knew info on the subject as is often suspected at least by me in online discussions where someone appears more authoritative on the subject.</p>

<p>I'm going to test file size and image quality between jpeg, tiff and PNG using Photoshop layers set to Difference blend mode. We all want a pixel container format that is as small as possible while sacrificing the least amount of pixel detail from compression.</p>

<p>I was going to one day render out all my xmp sidecar Raw files to 16 bit tiff just in case I'm no longer able to do so in the future seeing how Adobe software keeps updating and advancing along with my Mac OS while my long in the tooth 2010 Mac Mini workstation might give up the ghost.</p>

<p>Did the test. Saved a 6MP Raw in Photoshop to 16 bit tiff and 16 bit PNG and there's no change to image quality, not one pixel. Got a black fill on a layer set to Difference blend mode and then Subtract and both were solid black. I even ran my cursor over the image and checked info palette to see a change in RGB readouts and there are none.</p>

<p>The upside to PNG is that it's 4MB less than the tiff at 30MB PNG vs 34MB on the tiff. The downside to saving to PNG is that it strips the EXIF camera data that has copyright info and ACR edits. Checked it in CS5 Bridge. Fortunately PNG retains the embedded working color space profile (mine being ProPhotoRGB) even though the check box selection is grayed out in the Save As... dialog box where it isn't saving to tiff. So saving to PNG at least on a Mac automatically embeds the working color space profile upon saving.</p>

Wow so many responses! Thank you

all so much, I was so worried about

jpeg causing an issue with my quality,

but seeing as you all have so much

more experience it's made me feel

much better. I do use photoshop and

Lightroom for those that asked. You all

have been so helpful!

<p>Since storage is relatively cheap these days I think you have made a mistake in not keeping your camera originals. Many old time digital users made this error in the days when storage was expensive and have ended up with small files which are useless for larger prints etc as used today. I have a second hard drive and when downloading from camera the first thing I do is to place a copy of the camera file on the archive 2nd HD before then moving the camera file to my 'working HD'*. This means that I have the original always available .... a variation of the 'precious negative' of film days to be guarded carefully**.<br>

*I am aided in this as I still use the Windows file system rather than one of the newer systems.<br>

** I used film for many years before digital and have negatives from way back, pre WWII :)</p>

<p>Actually, I did save all my original files. I need to invest in external storage but I have never thrown away my RAW images. I usually keep my RAW, PSD, and my final for my clients all in one designated folder.</p>

<p>Glad I misunderstood you :-)</p>

<p>JPEG with the least compression is pretty good.</p>

<p>Yes keep the original files, but also keeping a non-proprietary uncompressed form is probably also a good idea. Personally, I think that TIFF is more popular, but PNG should be fine.</p>

<p>Actually, I suppose TIFF is also proprietary, but the specification is open, so anyone can figure out how to read and write it. As far as I know, the Nikon and Canon RAW file specifications are not open. Could have changed since I last knew.</p>

<p>In 30 or 40 or 50 years, assuming someone can read the bits, will they be able to decode them? </p>

<p>I only have negatives back to 5th grade. I thought that was pretty good. </p>